Re: The Crusades
[ QUOTE ]
Amazing...you have the Bible, OK...but you have read very little of the Koran, yet you think you know what it is all about (or more appropriately, what it IS NOT about).
[/ QUOTE ]
Wait, and again, this is important:
1) I don't just 'have' a Bible; I've read the Bible.
2) I've also read parts of the Koran (but, as I don't know Arabic [and neither do you, as far as I know], I'm limited as to how much I can truly understand of it).
[ QUOTE ]
I don't have time or inclination to write a tome to convince you or others...
[/ QUOTE ]
From what I've seen of your premises and arguments, even with infinite time, you could never write a convincing tome that would convince me or others.
[ QUOTE ]
Funny too you should advise me about pluralism...that's exactly my point, Islam is non-pluralistic, and absolutist...THAT'S what I take issue with. I'm all for pluralism--EXCEPT when one of the entities is non-pluralistic and absolutist. Another way of looking at it is that I'm all for tolerance...but that doesn't give a pass to intolerant persons or intolerant ideologies...I'm all for freedom, but that doesn't mean I support the freedom of "A" to enslave "B"
[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't talking about religious pluralism, specifically.
[ QUOTE ]
...you should really read more about what you are defending, Islam is very much an absolutist and totalitarian ideology...it is sad that many Westerners know so little about it, and that they erroneously presume it is just another side of the same coin.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, again, again...I don't agree with you, so you try to vainly claim I haven't 'read'. Nowhere have I ever conceded that I haven't 'read' about Islam. It's a conclusion you came to all on your own, for your own pathological reasons.
Like I said, there's a reason you're an island unto yourself. There's a reason your arguments are weak, and you're frequently forced to appeal to emotional arguments that lack reason and coherence, and are full of demagoguery. There's a reason you'd be laughed out of any room full of serious scholars and researchers, and legitimately so. And it's because you've never considered the possibility that you might be wrong, and that you're not persuasive -- so you've forced yourself into repeating the same, old, unconvincing clichés and platitudes that are tired and that you've been forced to spew ad nauseum (because you never bothered to consider other evidence and adapted accordingly).
How many times have I had to read that hackneyed quote you repeat over and over: "As Ibn Warraq says, there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate"; at least 10 times. Did you think we didn't hear you the first 9? Seriously, think it over.
The moment you realize you could be wrong is the moment you'll come back with better arguments. Great poker players (and if I remember correctly, you're a pretty good poker player who plays at pretty high limits, right?) are keenly aware of the importance of adaption, and accounting for new information. If somethings not working in poker, you're either catching the really awful end of variance, or you're playing badly. I think it's time to consider you might just be playing badly.
Until then, you'll just be spewing the same nonsense over and over, and fighting the same battles over and over -- and claiming you don't care about it all, only to fight the same battle again a week later. Funny I'm not buying the "I don't care" line, either. Care to take a guess why? I've heard it all before, and I'm still not convinced.
|